Cargo/Rust and Go show how compiled languages can have drastically superior development experiences. CMake is primitive in comparison. Its only upside is its flexibility, which I reckon isn't worth it for most cases.
It took me about the same amount of time to write few dozen lines of CMake (to get build working with all the external libraries), as it took me to write few thousands lines of C++.
I wasted way too much time dealing with CMake.
I claim BS unless those "thousands lines" were cut'n paste.
Well thank you. I just trying to guess where did you get the idea that I am not using 3rd party libs.
>"C++'s lack of a proper package manager means we're all reinventing the wheel because adding dependencies is non-trivial."
I think it is trivial. Here is particular example for cpp-http library that I use in some of my projects:
a) download from github
b) add add_subdirectory("./3rd-party/cpp-httplib") into CMakeLists.txt file
Additionally, you get a nice list in a simple spot of exactly what you need that isn’t just documentation. Anyone can easily pull your project and contribute.
Being able to easily manage deps has issues (such as a tendency to trend toward left-pad), but there’s also significant benefits as well that become readily apparent when you compare cargo with CMake (I understand they’re not completely comparable)
>"Even just adding a package fetch in CMake is infuriating."
I am not sure how to do it because I do not let build process / environment fetch things from the Internet. I always download / deploy / update manually upon real need. I would agree that having IDE do it for you is convenient but since I only use very few libs there is no need for me to do it at all.
If I need to create new project I just copy a template, fire up CLion IDE and it all takes few seconds from the - I am going to do it, to start actual coding.